Search results

Adjusting the legal status, and support policies for migrant workers is an issue on the agenda of international institutions for nearly a hundred years. The first efforts to protect foreign workers have been taken during the first session of the International Labour Conference in 1919. In the following decades ILO activities has led to the preparation of three international documents concerning this issue (non-binding ILO Convention No. 66 in 1939, and Convention No. 97 of 1949, and No. 143 of 1975). For many decades, the problem of the protection and assistance of migrant workers' rights was considered as a narrow issue of international labor law. Codification efforts, undertaken during seventies, has led to the adaptation of the UN document (International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families) in 1990, and inclusion this issue into more general area of international human rights law. Despite this fact, and the existence of several categories of documents concerning migrant workers within Council of Europe, the European Union, and even ASEAN, the protection of migrant workers has never been effectively functioning system. The aim of this article is the analysis of the codification of that issue, and the main obstacles to consensus on the protection of migrant workers' rights. The state parties of the UN Convention contains primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines). It seems, therefore, that despite 46 ratifications the, UN convention does not have a global character, and activities of its monitoring body (Committee on Migrant Workers-CMW) reflects primarily demands of sending countries. The article closely examines particularly controversial provisions of the ILO and UN documents from the point of view of current labour migrations and policies of sending and host countries.

The article concerns German discussions and plans regarding the future of the European Union and its international role. The fi rst part discusses confl icts or diff erences that burden relations between EU Member States regarding refugee policy, energy policy, the euro currency and arms policy. In addition, phenomena and processes such as nationalism and populism, Brexit and separatism are emphasized. Then the global changes are presented with which the European Union is confronted: the end of Eurocentrism, the US exit from the INF treaty, the future of the nuclear agreement with Iran and the US trade war with China. The rest of the article presents briefl y reactions in Germany, which fall into the mainstream of opinion formation, as well as concepts to overcome crises and shape the role of the European Union: democratization of the EU, the EU as a social union and a new policy of relaxation. ; Artykuł dotyczy niemieckich dyskusji i planów odnośnie przyszłości Unii Europejskiej i jej roli międzynarodowej. W pierwszej części omawiane są konfl ikty względnie różnice, które obciążają stosunki między państwami członkowskimi UE, tyczące się polityki uchodźczej, polityki energetycznej, waluty euro i polityki zbrojeniowej. Ponadto akcentowane są takie zjawiska i procesy, jak nacjonalizm i populizm, Brexit i separatyzm. Następnie prezentowane są globalne zmiany, z którymi konfrontowana jest Unia Europejska: koniec eurocentryzmu, wyjście USA z traktatu INF, przyszłość porozumienia atomowego z Iranem i wojna handlowa USA z Chinami. W dalszej części artykułu przedstawiono pokrótce reakcje w Niemczech, które mieszczą się w głównym nurcie kształtowania opinii, jak również koncepcje pozwalające przezwyciężyć kryzysy i kształtować rolę Unii Europejskiej: demokratyzacja UE, UE jako unia społeczna i nowa polityka odprężania.

One of the fundamental categories of general sociology concerns power. Regardless of differences in interpretation, power can be defined as the dependence between subordinator and subordinated. This relation is unidirectional. When discussing influence, this property is significant, as otherwise it could be reciprocal, or an influence could be exerted by many other entities that are not bound by the relationship of subordination. The nature of international relations is too specific to allow a simple transfer of power-related phenomena from the realm of domestic relations. One can indicate the presence of delegated power, resulting from the mutual assignment of subordination rights to international decision- making bodies. The processes of international power are divided into procedures of hard power, soft power and smart power, the latter signifying the manifestation of effective power, making use of the mechanisms of the former two. It is also important to take into account the specificity of the legitimization of international power and manifestations of accountability. Also not without significance is the capacity for the implementation of international power, equipped with the relevant enforcement instruments. ; One of the fundamental categories of general sociology concerns power. Regardless of differences in interpretation, power can be defined as the dependence between subordinator and subordinated. This relation is unidirectional. When discussing influence, this property is significant, as otherwise it could be reciprocal, or an influence could be exerted by many other entities that are not bound by the relationship of subordination. The nature of international relations is too specific to allow a simple transfer of power-related phenomena from the realm of domestic relations. One can indicate the presence of delegated power, resulting from the mutual assignment of subordination rights to international decision- making bodies. The processes of international power are divided into procedures of hard power, soft power and smart power, the latter signifying the manifestation of effective power, making use of the mechanisms of the former two. It is also important to take into account the specificity of the legitimization of international power and manifestations of accountability. Also not without significance is the capacity for the implementation of international power, equipped with the relevant enforcement instruments.

The aim of the paper is the analysis of the relationship between the perception of the success factors in international collaborative relationships and firm's international experience. The results of an empirical study on the sample of 278 Polish exporters and importers cooperating with partners from China and Germany are presented and both the differences in success factor perception depending on foreign partners' home country, and the correlation of the perception of the success factors with the international experience of the firms are discussed. The study revealed that the firms working with partners in China have somewhat more international experience. The importance of the majority of the success factors in relationships with German partners did not differ significantly from those in collaboration with Chinese firms. However, some consequential differences were observed. Internationalization experience is not strongly related with the perception of international cooperation success factors.

International relations are a form of human action so they should become the object of praxiology as a science oriented to efficiency. The traditional approach however must be changed. As it suggested in this article, human action is divided into three sections – cooperation, struggling and rivalry, which correspond to three types of theories. It should be added that cooperation is a positive-sum game, struggling – a negative-sum game and rivalry – a zero-sum game. The theory of international relations should be focused on the link between principles of cooperation and principles of struggling. This means that theory of foreign policy should be a theory of control in the zero-sum game system. ; International relations are a form of human action so they should become the object of praxiology as a science oriented to efficiency. The traditional approach however must be changed. As it suggested in this article, human action is divided into three sections – cooperation, struggling and rivalry, which correspond to three types of theories. It should be added that cooperation is a positive-sum game, struggling – a negative-sum game and rivalry – a zero-sum game. The theory of international relations should be focused on the link between principles of cooperation and principles of struggling. This means that theory of foreign policy should be a theory of control in the zero-sum game system.